AMD Radeon R9 270X versus AMD Radeon HD 7950
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon R9 270X and AMD Radeon HD 7950 pour tous les caractéristiques connus dans les catégories suivants: Essentiel, Infos techniques, Sorties et ports de vidéo, Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences, Soutien API, Mémoire, Technologies. Analyse du performance de référence des cartes vidéo: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score, Geekbench - OpenCL.
Différences
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon R9 270X
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 1 ans 8 mois plus tard
- Environ 67% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 180 Watt versus 300 Watt
- Environ 12% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1314.72 versus 1177.395
- Environ 12% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 6.354 versus 5.685
- Environ 23% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 85.21 versus 69.23
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 8068 versus 7988
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 8068 versus 7988
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 8 October 2013 versus 31 January 2012 |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 180 Watt versus 300 Watt |
| Référence | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 63.87 versus 63.74 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1314.72 versus 1177.395 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 6.354 versus 5.685 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 85.21 versus 69.23 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 8068 versus 7988 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3706 versus 3699 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 8068 versus 7988 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3706 versus 3699 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon HD 7950
- Environ 19% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1250 MHz versus 1050 MHz
- Environ 7% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 89.6 GTexel / s versus 84 GTexel / s
- Environ 40% de pipelines plus haut: 1792 versus 1280
- Environ 7% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 2,867 gflops versus 2,688 gflops
- Environ 50% plus de taille maximale de mémoire: 3 GB versus 2 GB
- Environ 9% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 343.81 versus 315.412
- Environ 8% meilleur performance en 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 1914 versus 1772
| Caractéristiques | |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1250 MHz versus 1050 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 89.6 GTexel / s versus 84 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 1792 versus 1280 |
| Performance á point flottant | 2,867 gflops versus 2,688 gflops |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 3 GB versus 2 GB |
| Référence | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 343.81 versus 315.412 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3359 versus 3350 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3359 versus 3350 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1914 versus 1772 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R9 270X
GPU 2: AMD Radeon HD 7950
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) |
|
|
||||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) |
|
|
||||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) |
|
|
||||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) |
|
|
||||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score |
|
|
| Nom | AMD Radeon R9 270X | AMD Radeon HD 7950 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 4869 | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 613 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 63.87 | 63.74 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1314.72 | 1177.395 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 6.354 | 5.685 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 85.21 | 69.23 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 315.412 | 343.81 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 8068 | 7988 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3706 | 3699 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3350 | 3359 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 8068 | 7988 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3706 | 3699 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3350 | 3359 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1772 | 1914 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 82144 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| AMD Radeon R9 270X | AMD Radeon HD 7950 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | GCN 1.0 |
| Nom de code | Curacao | Tahiti |
| Conception | AMD Radeon R9 200 Series | AMD Radeon HD 7000 Series |
| Date de sortie | 8 October 2013 | 31 January 2012 |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $199 | $449 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 440 | 503 |
| Prix maintenant | $399 | |
| Genre | Desktop | Desktop |
| Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 16.05 | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1050 MHz | 1250 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 2,688 gflops | 2,867 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 1280 | 1792 |
| Stream Processors | 1280 | 1792 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 84 GTexel / s | 89.6 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 180 Watt | 300 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 2,800 million | 4,313 million |
| Unités de Compute | 28 | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort |
| Soutien de DisplayPort | ||
| Soutien de Dual-link DVI | ||
| Eyefinity | ||
| HDMI | ||
| VGA | ||
| Nombre d’écrans Eyefinity | 6 | |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Soutien de bus | PCIe 3.0 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | 2 x 6-pin | 2x 6-pin |
| Longeur | 267 mm | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12 | 11 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 2 GB | 3 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 179.2 GB/s | 240 GB/s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 256 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Mémoire partagé | 0 | |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 1250 MHz | |
Technologies |
||
| AMD Eyefinity | ||
| AppAcceleration | ||
| CrossFire | ||
| DDMA audio | ||
| FreeSync | ||
| HD3D | ||
| LiquidVR | ||
| TressFX | ||
| TrueAudio | ||
| Unified Video Decoder (UVD) | ||
| PowerTune | ||
| ZeroCore | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer AMD Radeon R9 270X avec des autres
AMDRadeon R9 270X vs
NVIDIAGeForce 9800 GTX
AMDRadeon R9 270X vs
AMDFirePro W8000
AMDRadeon R9 270X vs
AMDFirePro S10000
AMDRadeon R9 270X vs
AMDRadeon HD 8830M
AMDRadeon R9 270X vs
AMDRadeon R9 285
AMDRadeon R9 270X vs
NVIDIAP106-100
